Hooligans Sportsbook

UConn v. Michigan

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    55 Replies •
  • Views 5,563 Views
Follow
Goat Milk
um...you can't use model's on two teams that are completely different than last year. you haven't even seen anything from them. This wolverines team is 100% different than last year, different schemes, different plays, different mindset. Good luck with using a model to predict what you have yet to see.

That would be like me saying my models for the Miami Heat or Houston Rockets from past seasons could be used in the upcoming season.

I have no clue what the play is here, but I would lean Michigan ML.
Click to expand...

welcome back, i think

80632091.jpg
 
models cannot be employed until you have a decent sized data set. Right now you have no data set except figures from the past which are irrelevant under this new wolverine system.

Are you going to use past figures when you wager on the Miami Heat/Houston Rockets/etc. this year?
 
Goat Milk
models cannot be employed until you have a decent sized data set. Right now you have no data set except figures from the past which are irrelevant under this new wolverine system.

Are you going to use past figures when you wager on the Miami Heat/Houston Rockets/etc. this year?
Click to expand...

There are ways to adjust for players who have previous year(s) statistics. There are also methods in college to gauge recruited talent. So yes, there are ways to model these games. However, as I said, I'm in agreement with the Michigan side.
 
I have decided to cheer for UConn.


Wally...that wasn't a complete list. Does Mrs. X do science on football? I would be interested in seeing that.

Thanks for your input gentlemen. Good luck to ya!!!

And Roll Tide!!!!!!!!!
 
MonkeyF0cker
There are ways to adjust for players who have previous year(s) statistics. There are also methods in college to gauge recruited talent. So yes, there are ways to model these games. However, as I said, I'm in agreement with the Michigan side.
Click to expand...

Yes but in my opinion there will be too many inconsistancies without seeing the schemes that will be utitlized first. Unless you have watched the film yourself and can determine what play sets Rod will use, the model will not be accurate until you watch at least 1 game. Similar to in the NBA, models are fine to use during the regular season, but they usually fall apart in the playoffs. The playoffs is a coaches game. Its about watching film and adjusting accordingly. matchup analyzation. The tempo changes based on the team (based on how you will exploite that team, whether in transition, slow half court, two man game sets, exploitation late in the shot clock, etc.), and you can only know this by watching film to draw out weaknesses. Each team has a different one. The Lakers won games 1 and 3 of the finals because Phil realized that Boston is a poor defensive team in transition. Fast paced teams give them problems, so LA pushed the tempo because Boston is deadly defenisvely in half court sets. Once they went away from this and started going back to the triangle and iso kobe on the elbow they struggled.

So you can adjust the numbers for the Rockets next year, that they won't be a fast paced team, they will be a half court team and a good defensive team in transition, but won't score as many points as they did last year. But that model that you predict will not be accurate until you at least have a few games of the season under your belt to look at the data. Some people think that watching the sport your whole life/analyzing film (during the playoffs especially) will not help you.

People that use models think they have all the answers. They watch a sport for a year or so and have gambled it for 5 years then all of the sudden they know it all.

Just my opinion.
 
Well, Goat Milk, you make some pretty odd generalizations and assumptions. It's quite clear that you don't understand that there are many different ways to model games. Just because you think you might find some exploitation of a defense by watching game film doesn't mean that the team will utilize it or be efficient in attempting to exploit it. If it were so easy, why did the Lakers only play uptempo in games 1 and 3? Your own example proves my point. And to infer that you think you have a better grasp of game strategy than certain modelers is beyond ludicrous. There are many examples of the spread offense where one can draw Rodriguez's general strategy.
 
MonkeyF0cker
Well, Goat Milk, you make some pretty odd generalizations and assumptions. It's quite clear that you don't understand that there are many different ways to model games. Just because you think you might find some exploitation of a defense by watching game film doesn't mean that the team will utilize it or be efficient in attempting to exploit it. If it were so easy, why did the Lakers only play uptempo in games 1 and 3? Your own example proves my point. And to infer that you think you have a better grasp of game strategy than certain modelers is beyond ludicrous. There are many examples of the spread offense where one can draw Rodriguez's general strategy.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you saw I infered that. All I said was that people that use models think that stats are the answer to gambling, and they are not open to any sort of suggestions from the people I have come across. If that were the case, we'd all be rich.

"If it were so easy, why did the Lakers only play uptempo in games 1 and 3?"

To answer this question, it's simply because they went away from what was working and Phil did not stress up tempo in the remaining games. It was mostly Kobe iso on the elbow and two man game. Also, the celtics effectively adapated after the first few games.

There are things you catch on film that can make your models much more accurate, that's all I am saying. In game 2, when Phil started Fisher on Ray Allen I thought it was a huge mistake. Fisher is a terrible defender, bad off the ball, trying to run through screens, etc. Allen destoryed him in game 2. I thought Phil would use Vujacic more in game 3, but did not bet that game because I have watched Phil throughout his career and I understand he is very stubborn with making these types of adjustments. In game 3 I was curious to see how he would come out. Once again, he started Fisher on Ray. With a huge performance from Kobe, the Lakers were able to pull out the win, but I knew right then Phil wasn't inetnding on changing that matchup.

Fisher was gambling on every screen and Ray was open for almost ever jumper in game 4. His energy was drained from guarding Bryant all game, but Fish's defensive inadequecies with gaurding off the ball were exploited. Him being 1 second late causes the next baseline defender to rotate over, hence leaving the PF/C downlow for a free rebound with no one boxing them out. So even though Ray didn't have a great game, he was the reason why the Celtics won that game and that decision by Phil is what led me to take the Celts in game 4 (along with other reason of course- but that was the main one).

I am familiar with models but definitely don't have the knowledge of them as you guys. I am always looking to learn. The only thing I said was I find it funny how people don't watch the game and then just gamble for about 5 years and they all of the sudden think they are on top of the world with their FIGURES
 
Most people who fancy themselves as very knowledgeable about sports are piss-poor bettors cause they overvalue their edge by an order of magnitude. Gaining a more precise understanding of your edge and staking your bets accordingly is way more important than knowing minute strategic/coaching/playmaking details.
 
Goat Milk
To answer this question, it's simply because they went away from what was working and Phil did not stress up tempo in the remaining games. It was mostly Kobe iso on the elbow and two man game. Also, the celtics effectively adapated after the first few games.
Click to expand...

So what in game film told you that they would abandon a successful strategy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.